Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Stroke’ Category


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of long-term disability amongst adults, more particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. Increasing evidence suggests that disordered physiological variables following acute ischaemic stroke, especially hyperglycaemia, adversely affect outcomes.

 

Post-stroke hyperglycaemia is common (up to 50% of patients) and may be rather prolonged, regardless of diabetes status. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that hyperglycaemia has a deleterious effect upon clinical and morphological stroke outcomes. Therefore, hyperglycaemia represents an attractive physiological target for acute stroke therapies.

 

However, whether intensive glycaemic manipulation positively influences the fate of ischaemic tissue remains unknown. One major adverse event of management of hyperglycaemia with insulin (either glucose-potassium-insulin infusions or intensive insulin therapy) is the occurrence of hypoglycaemia, which can also induce cerebral damage.

 

Doctors all over the world have debated whether intensive glucose management, which requires the use of IV insulin to bring blood sugar levels down to 80-130 mg/dL, or standard glucose control using insulin shots, which aims to get glucose below 180 mg/dL, lead to better outcomes after stroke.

 

A period of hyperglycemia is common, with elevated blood glucose in the periinfarct period consistently linked with poor outcome in patients with and without diabetes. The mechanisms that underlie this deleterious effect of dysglycemia on ischemic neuronal tissue remain to be established, although in vitro research, functional imaging, and animal work have provided clues.

 

While prompt correction of hyperglycemia can be achieved, trials of acute insulin administration in stroke and other critical care populations have been equivocal. Diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia per se are associated with poor cerebrovascular health, both in terms of stroke risk and outcome thereafter.

 

Interventions to control blood sugar are available but evidence of cerebrovascular efficacy are lacking. In diabetes, glycemic control should be part of a global approach to vascular risk while in acute stroke, theoretical data suggest intervention to lower markedly elevated blood glucose may be of benefit, especially if thrombolysis is administered.

 

Both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia may lead to further brain injury and clinical deterioration; that is the reason these conditions should be avoided after stroke. Yet, when correcting hyperglycaemia, great care should be taken not to switch the patient into hypoglycaemia, and subsequently aggressive insulin administration treatment should be avoided.

 

Early identification and prompt management of hyperglycaemia, especially in acute ischaemic stroke, is recommended. Although the appropriate level of blood glucose during acute stroke is still debated, a reasonable approach is to keep the patient in a mildly hyperglycaemic state, rather than risking hypoglycaemia, using continuous glucose monitoring.

 

The primary results from the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) study, a large, multisite clinical study showed that intensive glucose management did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days after stroke compared to standard glucose therapy. In addition, intense glucose therapy increased the risk of very low blood glucose (hypoglycemia) and required a higher level of care such as increased supervision from nursing staff, compared to standard treatment.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-provides-answer-long-held-debate-blood-sugar-control-after-stroke

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27873213

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342845

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20491782

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211743

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690907

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


CABG: a Superior Revascularization Modality to PCI in Patients with poor LVF, Multivessel disease and Diabetes, Similar Risk of Stroke between 31 days and 5 years, post intervention

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 9/4/2019

SYNTAX at 10 Years: Bypass vs PCI Still a Toss-Up Overall

But CABG beats stenting for important subgroups

SOURCE

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/esc/81944?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2019-09-04&eun=g99985d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%202019-09-04&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_Active

Lancet Study, 2/2018

Interpretation

CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

JACC Study, 7/2018

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.

European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Study, 6/2018

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a longer length of hospital stay, patients with impaired LVF requiring intervention for coronary artery disease experienced a greater post-procedural survival benefit if they received CABG compared to PCI. We have demonstrated this at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 8 years following revascularization. At present, CABG remains a superior revascularization modality to PCI in patients with poor LVF.

 

New Studies on Clinical Outcomes from two Revascularization Strategies: CABG and PCI

 

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72(4):386-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071.

Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are used for coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease. Stroke is among the most feared complications of revascularization. Due to its infrequency, studies with large numbers of patients are required to detect differences in stroke rates between CABG and PCI.

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to compare rates of stroke after CABG and PCI and the impact of procedural stroke on long-term mortality.

METHODS:

We performed a collaborative individual patient-data pooled analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents; ERACI II (Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease) (n = 450), ARTS (Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study) (n = 1,205), MASS II (Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study) (n = 408), SoS (Stent or Surgery) trial (n = 988), SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial (n = 1,800), PRECOMBAT (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) trial (n = 600), FREEDOM (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes) trial (n = 1,900), VA CARDS (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) (n = 198), BEST (Bypass Surgery Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) (n = 880), NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trial (n = 1,184), and EXCEL (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial (n = 1,905). The 30-day and 5-year stroke rates were compared between CABG and PCI using a random effects Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by trial. The impact of stroke on 5-year mortality was explored.

RESULTS:

The analysis included 11,518 patients randomly assigned to PCI (n = 5,753) or CABG (n = 5,765) with a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.4 years during which a total of 293 strokes occurred. At 30 days, the rate of stroke was 0.4% after PCI and 1.1% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to 0.53; p < 0.001). At 5-year follow-up, stroke remained significantly lower after PCI than after CABG (2.6% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97; p = 0.027). Rates of stroke between 31 days and 5 years were comparable: 2.2% after PCI versus 2.1% after CABG (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.38; p = 0.72). No significant interactions between treatment and baseline clinical or angiographic variables for the 5-year rate of stroke were present, except for diabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 4.9%) and nondiabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 2.4%) (p for interaction = 0.004). Patients who experienced a stroke within 30 days of the procedure had significantly higher 5-year mortality versus those without a stroke, both after PCI (45.7% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001) and CABG (41.5% vs. 8.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.

KEYWORDS:

coronary artery bypass graft; left main; mortality; multivessel; percutaneous coronary intervention; stenting; stroke

PMID:
30025574
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071

 

Lancet Study

Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, Ahn JM, Boersma E, Christiansen EH, Domanski MJ, Farkouh ME, Flather M, Fuster V, Hlatky MA, Holm NR, Hueb WA, Kamalesh M, Kim YH, Mäkikallio T, Mohr FW, Papageorgiou G, Park SJ, Rodriguez AE, Sabik JF, Stables RH, Stone GW, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018 Feb 22 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9. PMID: 29478841

Summary

Background

Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies.

Methods

We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics.

Findings

We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06–1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09–1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19–1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86–1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87–1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score.

Interpretation

CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

SOURCE

European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Study, 6/2018

 

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jun 22. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy236. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of the survival between coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with poor left ventricular function (ejection fraction <30%): a propensity-matched analysis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Existing evidence comparing the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with poor left ventricular function (LVF) is sparse and flawed. This is largely due to patients with poor LVF being underrepresented in major research trials and the outdated nature of some studies that do not consider drug-eluting stent PCI.

METHODS:

Following strict inclusion criteria, 717 patients who underwent revascularization by CABG or PCI between 2002 and 2015 were enrolled. All patients had poor LVF (defined by ejection fraction <30%). By employing a propensity score analysis, 134 suitable matches (67 CABG and 67 PCI) were identified. Several outcomes were evaluated, in the matched population, using data extracted from national registry databases.

RESULTS:

CABG patients required a longer length of hospital stay post-revascularization compared to PCI in the propensity-matched population, 7 days (lower-upper quartile; 6-12) and 2 days (lower-upper quartile; 1-6), respectively (Mood’s median test, P = 0.001). Stratified Cox-regression proportional-hazards analysis of the propensity-matched population found that PCI patients experienced a higher adjusted 8-year mortality rate (hazard ratio 3.291, 95% confidence interval 1.776-6.101; P < 0.001). This trend was consistent amongst urgent cases of revascularization: patients with 3 or more vessels with coronary artery disease and patients where complete revascularization was achieved. Although sub-analyses found no difference between survival distributions of on-pump versus off-pump CABG (log-rank P = 0.726), both modes of CABG were superior to PCI (stratified log-rank P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite a longer length of hospital stay, patients with impaired LVF requiring intervention for coronary artery disease experienced a greater post-procedural survival benefit if they received CABG compared to PCI. We have demonstrated this at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 8 years following revascularization. At present, CABG remains a superior revascularization modality to PCI in patients with poor LVF.

Read Full Post »